All the News That's Fit to be Tied

I have an axe to grind, but unlike the New York Times, I freely admit it.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Ghost of Slavery Past

I have always been afraid of the day when conservatives would become so frustrated at the tactics of the socialist, liberal, progressive left that we would take their example and go the dirty tactics route. Despite my joy is seeing progressives at their worst, flailing at moving targets and getting it wrong every time, I am disappointed with Andrew Breibart's latest video scoop on USDA's Shirley Sherrod because in its entirety the video paints a different picture than the edited portion. However, in Andrew's defense the video's most disturbing aspect was Mrs. Sherrods preoccupation with how the white farmer was trying to assert his superiority. How she was in fact the power player in the situation and because he was white did not do everything she could have. During this little sequence the audience chuckled and laughed at her coded statements meant to mock what she perceived as "white superiority." This unspoken, barely hinted at attitude seems prevalent among some African-Americans who seem to rely on the "Ghost of Slavery Past" to justify the continued perception that all whites, even those they like, are naturally racist.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010


(KANSAS CITY, MO) – Over 2,000 National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People (NAACP) delegates today unanimously passed a resolution—as amended—called “The New Black Panther Party Movement,” asking for the repudiation of racist New Black Panther Party leaders.
The resolution condemns the bigoted elements within the New Black Panther Party and asks for them to be repudiated. The NAACP delegates presented this resolution for debate and passage after a year of vitriolic New Black Panther Party demonstrations during which participants used racial slurs and images. In November of 2008 members of the New Black Panther Party wielded weapons and intimidated voters who wished to enter a voting center. One of their leaders, Samir Shabazz, called for the killing of “cracker” babies at a Philadelphia Street fair. They were charged, but a new Justice Department policy, stating that black defendants cannot be tried for racial bias, made their admission of guilt unnecessary.
“We take no issue with the Black Panther Party movement. We believe in freedom of assembly and people raising their voices in a democracy. What we take issue with is the New Black Panther Party’s continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism & anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement,” stated NAACP President and CEO George Rudolph. “Last night after my speech, I was approached by an African American member of the NAACP and the New Black Panther Party. He thanked me for speaking out because he has begun to feel uncomfortable in the New Black Panther Party and wants to ensure there will always be space for him in both organizations. I assured him there will always be a place for him in the NAACP. Malik and Samir Shabazz and the leadership of the New Black Panther Party need to do the same.”
The resolution was amended during the debate to specifically ask the New Black Panther Party itself to repudiate the racist elements and activities of the New Black Panther Party. It comes on the heels of NAACP President and CEO George Rudolph's announcement of the “Nation Working Together” Movement culminating with a national march on Washington.
The resolution will now go to the NAACP National Board of Directors for a full vote when they meet in October 2010 in Baltimore, MD. A formal copy of the resolution will be released at that time.
Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Hispanics and Immigration

Let me start by saying I loathe the term “Hispanic.” It is a meaningless classification designed to give groups of disparate people an identity for political purposes only. Unlike the terms Caucasian and Negroid, which are based on morphological features, Hispanic is based purely on surname. If it sounds Spanish, then you are Spanish. For example, Gonzalez, not be confused with Gorgonzola. One is obviously Spanish, the other not so. And in truth, people of Spanish descent do not call themselves Hispanic. They say I am Spanish. I am Puerto Rican. I am Cuban. I am Mexican. I bring this up because in order to get a good feel for how people of Spanish descent feel about immigration and illegal immigration you must honor the nationalities of the various Spanish-speaking peoples and see them as discrete cultures, not just last names. A recent poll in Colorado showed that over 60-percent of Hispanics in that state favored Arizona’s new immigration law. The mainstream pollsters have taken several more polls to show that nationwide Hispanics-there goes that word again-do not favor the law. But that is to be expected these days as the media continues the role of giant PR machine for the radical left. It makes sense to me that 60-percent of Spanish-surnamed people would favor tough immigration laws. Not only does it show they that want to live in a lawful society, but it reflects their belief in the value of citizenship. Spanish people are often described as conservative, religious, family and community-oriented etc. Why would anyone believe such people would favor illegal activity whether it be smuggling drugs or people? Why would anyone believe that most Spanish people who achieve citizenship through effort and hard work think it should be given freely to anyone? I have trouble with that; so should you. Special interest groups and their allies on the liberal left can say anything they want about illegal immigration. At the end of the day it is still illegal, an unfair burden on the taxpayers and a threat to national security. The Justice Department must butt out, the Congress must fund the fence and Arizona must do what the Federal government will not; Enforce immigration laws.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Obama's War on Caucasians

It may not be fair to accuse the White House and the President of fostering a permissive attitude towards racism, but that is exactly what is happening in the supposed post-racial Presidency of Barack Obama. We have a New Black Panther Party member espousing the killing of Caucasian adults and children. This man stood in the entry way of a polling place in Philadelphia and was charged with election law violations. The Justice Department, under the direction of terrorist defender Eric Holder, dropped the charges after being awarded summary judgment. According to congressional testimony given last week the Justice Department now takes the position that minority individuals cannot be prosecuted for election law violations against Caucasian victims. It is clear that Justice under the direction of Holder and the President are now engaged in race war politics and the politics of racial revenge. Throughout President Obama's campaign he talked of moving forward. It appears now that a few steps back is what he really has in mind.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Is Obama Lost in Space?

As many people are saying lately: You can't make this stuff up. In a recent interview with al-Jazzera marking the one year anniversary of President Obama's Cairo speech, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has stated that "reaching out to Muslims" is now a prime responsibility of the space agency. NASA will no longer boldly step into the future. Now it will help "Muslim nations feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." Under Bolden and Obama NASA will no longer be a can-do agency. Instead of reaching for the stars, developing new technologies and leading the way into the future, NASA will become a vehicle for leading America to third-world dependence. Instead of leading the world into a bright future we will go willingly onto the path of a new dark age of mediocrity brought about by those who despise freedom and independence. By those who think that plantation living is preferable to independent living. By those who think we must be led like livestock. By those who think we cannot think for ourselves. It is they, Obama and Bolden among them, who are truly lost in space.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Arizona Suit on Flimsy Ground

The U.S. Justice Department's suit against the Arizona immigration law will be on very flimsy ground. It demonstrates an inept attempt by Justice to redefine immigration law by saying only the Federal government has the primary prerogative in establishing and enforcing immigration rules. In order for this argument to succeed the federal law would have to permit illegal immigration and accuse Arizona of invading its prerogative to establish immigration rules. Then any attempt by Arizona to establish a new immigration rule could be called an "illegal intrusion on Federal prerogatives." However Federal Law, while it may tolerate illegal immigration, does not make illegal entry within the law. It is still illegal to enter the U.S. without the proper documentation. So the Arizona law does not illegally intrude on a Federal prerogative, it merely defends the law on more stringent grounds. For example the Federal Law requires immigrants to produce documentation on demand, while the Arizona law requires an already occurring incident before documentation can be requested.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Are Kristol and Hayes Stuck on Stupid?

After listening to Steve Hayes and Bill Kristol on FOX News Sunday you have to believe that they are either rewriting history or just conveniently forgetting the past. The view that Michael Steel, Republican Party Chairman, should resign because he called Afghanistan Obama’s War is just their failure to recognize how we got to a full-blown military campaign there in the first place. Do Hayes and Kristol really think that Obama wants to fight a war in Afghanistan? A thoughtful look at the 2008 Presidential campaign clearly demonstrates that in an effort o criticize Bush 43’s war policy Obama said Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and that the war we should be fighting was in Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Obama claimed he wanted to fight in Afghanistan in an effort to convince the American voting public he was not anti-war, just anti-Bush. In truth, Obama like the Democratic Party in general was and is anti-war. This truth is beginning to show in the Congress where Democratic criticism of the Afghan strategy is becoming more vociferous. Back in 2009, on Inauguration day I asked the question: Will they (Obama voters) still be thrilled when the war in Afghanistan becomes bigger than the war in Iraq? This was a time when Guantanamo Bay would be closed, the war in Iraq would be over and the stimulus bill would ensure that unemployment would never be higher than 8-percent. Eighteen months later Guantanamo is still open and the war in Iraq continues. Unemployment is well over 8-percent and likely to continue climbing as Obama moves to shut down the fossil fuel energy industry. The war, once an effort to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden, is now a nation-building exercise, much like the one Democrats and Obama criticized President Bush for in Iraq. Hayes and Kristol insisting that Republicans must support the war in Afghanistan are asking conservatives to provide their leadership with the same type of blind support that the anti-war movement has provided to the Democrats. The purpose of war is defeating your enemy. If you are not prepared to do it then don’t start one.